{"id":188898,"date":"2025-09-29T02:52:23","date_gmt":"2025-09-29T02:52:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/188898\/"},"modified":"2025-09-29T02:52:23","modified_gmt":"2025-09-29T02:52:23","slug":"trump-misleads-on-climate-change-and-renewables-at-u-n","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/188898\/","title":{"rendered":"Trump Misleads on Climate Change and Renewables at U.N."},"content":{"rendered":"

In an hourlong address<\/a> before the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 23, President Donald Trump lashed out at those promoting \u201cthe green energy agenda,\u201d saying it had left many European countries \u201con the brink of destruction\u201d and dismissing climate change as a \u201choax\u201d and \u201cthe greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world.\u201d<\/p>\n

Along the way, Trump made numerous false and misleading claims about renewable energy and climate change, many of which we\u2019ve fact-checked before. <\/p>\n

Wind Farms in China<\/p>\n

Trump wrongly claimed that while China sells most of the world\u2019s wind turbines, \u201cthey have very few wind farms.\u201d In fact, China has more wind farms than any other country in the world, by far.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\u201cMost\u201d wind turbines \u201care built in China and I give China a lot of credit,\u201d Trump said. \u201cThey build them, but they have very few wind farms. So why is it that they build them and they send them all over the world, but they barely use them? You know what they use? Coal. They use gas. They use almost anything, but they don\u2019t like wind. But they sure as hell like selling the windmills.\u201d<\/p>\n

As we\u2019ve written<\/a>, it\u2019s true that China dominates the wind turbine manufacturing market. According to Wood Mackenzie<\/a>, a research and consulting firm, China led the global wind turbine manufacturers\u2019 market share in 2023, accounting for 65% of global wind capacity.<\/p>\n

But it\u2019s not accurate to claim that China has very few wind farms. To the contrary, according to Global Energy Monitor<\/a>, which produces data on energy infrastructure around the world, China had an operating wind farm capacity of about 444,000 megawatts, as of February. That\u2019s about 44% of the global total and nearly triple the capacity of the U.S., which ranks second. China also ranks first in the number of operating wind farms, with 31.5% of the world\u2019s total. That\u2019s nearly five times the total in the U.S., which ranked fourth (Germany and France were second and third, respectively).<\/p>\n

\"\"Aerial view of the wind farm on Pingtan Island in Fuzhou, Fujian Province of China. Photo by Wang Dongming\/China News Service\/VCG via Getty Images.<\/p>\n

In a video address to a U.N. climate summit on Sept. 24, China\u2019s president, Xi Jinping, vowed<\/a> that China would double its wind capacity over the next decade, according to the Financial Times.<\/p>\n

Trump also wrongly claimed wind energy is the \u201cmost expensive energy ever conceived\u201d and that it can\u2019t exist \u201cwithout massive subsidies.\u201d As we\u2019ve\u00a0explained<\/a>, offshore wind energy is currently very expensive, but nuclear energy is typically the most expensive power type. Power generated from wind turbines on land is cheaper and has a similar or lower cost as natural gas and coal plants, even without subsidies, when using the standard measure of levelized cost of electricity.<\/p>\n

In addition, he misleadingly mocked wind energy as \u201cnot strong enough to fire up the plants\u201d and useless when \u201cthe wind doesn\u2019t blow.\u201d As we\u2019ve written<\/a>, wind power does come with extra variability, since the wind is not always blowing. Intermittency \u201cwould be a problem if we were trying to build an energy system that relied 100% on wind power,\u201d Columbia University\u2019s Matthew B. Eisenson<\/a> told us for our February story. \u201cBut nobody is trying to do that.\u201d People don\u2019t lose power when the wind isn\u2019t blowing because wind is one of many\u00a0energy sources<\/a>\u00a0coming into the electrical grid.<\/p>\n

Global Warming Not a \u2018Hoax\u2019<\/p>\n

The president blamed tens of thousands of heat-related deaths in Europe each year on a lack of air conditioning, which he said is \u201call in the name of pretending to stop the global warming hoax.\u201d<\/p>\n

For a number of reasons<\/a>, Europeans historically have used air conditioning to a much lesser degree than Americans. But it\u2019s false for him to call global warming a \u201choax.\u201d<\/p>\n

There is overwhelming<\/a> evidence<\/a> that the planet is warming and that it is being driven by human activity, as NASA says<\/a>, and as we wrote<\/a> in 2024. The most recent National Climate Assessment<\/a> in 2023 similarly said, \u201cHuman activities \u2014 primarily emissions of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel use \u2014 have unequivocally caused the global warming observed over the industrial era.\u201d As more carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases have been emitted into the atmosphere over time, land and ocean temperatures have risen, along with sea levels. On the other hand, sea and land ice have declined.<\/p>\n

And temperatures in Europe in particular are increasing \u201cat around twice the global average rate,\u201d according to<\/a> the World Health Organization. An August 2024 UN News report<\/a>, citing the WHO, said, \u201cA staggering 175,000 people die from heat-related causes every year in Europe and that figure is set to soar in line with our steadily warming planet.\u201d<\/p>\n

Using the Phrase \u2018Climate Change\u2019<\/p>\n

Trump wrongly claimed that climate scientists have stopped using the term \u201cglobal warming\u201d because the Earth \u201cstarted getting cooler\u201d and \u201cnow they just call it climate change because that way they can\u2019t miss.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cYou know, it used to be global cooling,\u201d Trump said. \u201cIf you look back years ago in the 1920s and the 1930s, they said global cooling will kill the world. We have to do something. Then they said global warming will kill the world, but then it started getting cooler. So now they just call it climate change because that way they can\u2019t miss. Climate change, because if it goes higher or lower, whatever the hell happens, there\u2019s climate change. It\u2019s the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world, in my opinion. Climate change, no matter what happens, you\u2019re involved in that. No more global warming, no more global cooling.\u201d<\/p>\n

For starters, climate scientists have not stopped using the term \u201cglobal warming.\u201d As we wrote<\/a> last year, it is still commonly used in academic papers \u2014 the term has appeared in more than 100,000 papers over the last two years, according to a Google Scholar search<\/a>. It specifically refers<\/a> to the long-term warming of the Earth\u2019s surface.<\/p>\n

Climate change includes global warming but is a broader term<\/a> that can refer<\/a> to other effects on the planet, including sea level rise, extreme weather and shifts in precipitation. The term is distinct and did not replace global warming.<\/p>\n

Contrary to Trump\u2019s suggestion, there was never a broad consensus from scientists that the Earth was cooling the way there is now that the planet is warming. And it hasn\u2019t gotten \u201ccooler.\u201d While temperatures do not necessarily rise each year in each location across the globe, the trend of rising average surface global temperatures over time is unmistakable<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The four hottest years on record, according to NASA<\/a> were 2024, 2023, 2020 and 2016.<\/p>\n

Paris Agreement Funding<\/p>\n

Trump also defended withdrawing the U.S. from the 2015 Paris Agreement<\/a> to address climate change, which he misleadingly suggested was requiring the country to spend about $1 trillion.<\/p>\n

\u201cAmerica was paying so much more than every country,\u201d Trump said. He added, \u201cFor the United States, we\u2019re supposed to pay like a trillion dollars.\u201d<\/p>\n

But the agreement<\/a> didn\u2019t stipulate each participating country pay a certain dollar amount. In part, it said \u201cdeveloped country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation.\u201d Developed countries agreed<\/a> to collectively contribute a minimum of $100 billion annually to developing nations for initiatives reducing emissions.<\/p>\n

We didn\u2019t find a figure for how much the U.S. has spent in total because of the Paris Agreement specifically. Under President Barack Obama, the U.S. contributed<\/a> $1 billion to the Green Climate Fund<\/a>, which is an element of the pact and helps lower-income countries combat climate change. And under President Joe Biden, according to a November 2024 State Department update<\/a>, the U.S. gave more than an estimated $27 billion for \u201cinternational public climate finance\u201d to developing countries.\u00a0<\/p>\n

When we asked for the source of Trump\u2019s $1 trillion figure, the White House pointed to Biden administration policies. \u201cPresident Trump was right \u2013 globalist Joe Biden forced American taxpayers to fund ridiculous climate goals and stifle our economy,\u201d Anna Kelly, a White House spokeswoman, told us in an email.<\/p>\n

A July 2024 Politico analysis<\/a> said that four major bills that Biden signed into law authorized about $1.6 trillion for<\/a> \u201cclimate, energy and infrastructure initiatives\u201d in the U.S. But that level of funding, some of which Trump has halted, wasn\u2019t required by the Paris Agreement, as Trump\u2019s remarks suggested. That funding also included money for non-climate projects, such as highway construction, lead pipe removal and semiconductor manufacturing.<\/p>\n

Coal Not So \u2018Clean\u2019<\/p>\n

While making a claim about energy reserves in the U.S., Trump again called coal \u201cclean,\u201d which it is not.<\/p>\n

\u201cI call it clean, beautiful coal,\u201d Trump said. \u201cYou can do things today with coal that you couldn\u2019t have done 10 years ago, 15 years. So I have a little standing order in the White House, never use the word coal. Only use the words clean, beautiful coal.\u201d<\/p>\n

But as we wrote<\/a> this year, the Energy Information Administration says<\/a> that coal production and consumption can negatively affect people\u2019s health and the environment. For example, the EIA explains<\/a> that burning coal emits toxic pollutants linked to respiratory illnesses and lung disease, including federally regulated pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. The Environmental Protection Agency also notes<\/a> that more carbon dioxide is emitted from coal combustion than from any other energy-producing fossil fuel.<\/p>\n

\u201cAt the present time, coal is not cleaner than its alternatives,\u201d Joost de Gouw<\/a>, a chemistry professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, told us for our April story. That\u2019s despite the majority of coal-fired plants already using systems to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, he noted. \u201cCompared with natural gas power plants that use combined cycle technology (the industry standard), current coal-fired power plants emit roughly 10 times more nitrogen oxides and 100 times more sulfur dioxide per kWh of electricity produced,\u201d he said, referring to kilowatt-hours.<\/p>\n

Editor\u2019s note:\u00a0FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through\u00a0our \u201cDonate\u201d page<\/a>. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"In an hourlong address before the U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 23, President Donald Trump lashed out at…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":188899,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[47],"tags":[192,79],"class_list":{"0":"post-188898","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-environment","8":"tag-environment","9":"tag-science"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188898","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=188898"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188898\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/188899"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=188898"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=188898"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=188898"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}